<p>1of42: Well I really wasn't thinking of you personally when I made that statement, so I'll leave it up to you as to whether you fit that category or not! (btw please tell me again how to do the smiley since your explanation got deleted with that last thread.)</p>
faith and science don't need to mix.
<p>Faith and science don't NEED to mix, but, as science begins to explain more and more of what used to be considered faith, they begin to mix. </p>
<p>To a primitive person who's never seen a tv, it would be considered magical. There've been lots of books and movies about primitive people thinking a modern person was some sort of god. It was only because they didn't understand the technology.</p>
<p>To someone who accepts the possibility that ours is not the only planet among all those billions capable of supporting intelligent life, and that our scientific knowledge is not necessarily the most advanced in the universe, the theory that intelligent beings came to our planet at some point in our distant past and demonstrated some of their technology, the primitives would naturally think those beings were some sort of gods. </p>
<p>This would explain the 'God' of the old testament as well as the mysteries of who built the pyramids and other unexplainables, btw.</p>
<p>1of42, my definition of metaphysics is a bit more specific than yours, at least in terms of its common usage among those who consider themselves 'metaphysicians' (much like a vegetarian laying claim to the term and stating that someone who avoids red meat has no such claim) which is why I asked for your definition. Mine would be anything of an occult (translate: 'hidden,' NOT evil) nature which seeks to explain natural laws that are not yet readily accepted by mainstream science. The assumption is that mainstream science just has not yet caught up with what psychics, mystics, etc. know to be true from direct experience. </p>
<p>Likewise, those who have experienced some sort of spiritual uplifting, or presence, if you will, would say that science simply has not yet caught up with God, or, to be more accurate, with whatever it is they are experiencing that they are attributing to God. Their experiences are quite real. Science may attempt to explain it with chemical reactions, but that still does not answer the question of what CAUSED those chemical reactions.</p>
<p>As with the Big Bang theory, which, imo, requires much more faith than the theory that there is a Cosmic Intelligence of some sort who set it all in motion. I find it much more logical to believe that intelligence designed the universe and then inhabited the physical reality, than the idea that all of the beauty and intelligence just happened by chance.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting article about this:</p>
In one of her essays in PARADE magazine, columnist Marilyn Vos Savant - Guinness record holder as the person with the highest recorded IQ - laid down an interesting challenge: she dared us to tell the difference between "faith" in religion and "faith" in science:</p>
<p>"But do you believe [in the Big Bang theory]? If so, how do you support your belief that the entire cosmos was once smaller than a polka dot? (With a strong line of reasoning? Some solid evidence? Anything at all?) If you cannot, welcome to the world of faith: you're accepting what you've been told by those you respect. And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks."